"India has once again challenged the UN's climate science body - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) --- through a new scientific paper. The Environment ministry sponsored paper says that human induced global warming is much less than what the R K Pachauri headed IPCC had said" –The Hindustan Times, 21 January 2011 , reported by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, UK

CCNet - 21 January 2011

The Climate Policy Network

Indian Government Challenges Western Climate

Alarmism

A key belief of climate science theology — that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming — has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry on Monday. –The Hindu, 21 January 2011

There is a groupthink in climate science today. Anyone who raises alternative climate theories is immediately branded as a climate atheist in an atmosphere of climate evangelists. Climate science is incredibly more complex than [developed countries] negotiators make it out to be… Climate science should not be driven by the West. We should not always be dependent on outside reports. --Jairam Ramesh, Indian Environment Minister, The Hindu, 21 January 2011

India has once again challenged the UN's climate science body - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) --- through a new scientific paper. The Environment ministry sponsored paper says that human induced global warming is much less than what the R K Pachauri headed IPCC had said. –The Hindustan Times, 21 January 2011

The cause is reduced impact of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) on formulation of low clouds over earth in the last 150 years, says a paper by U R Rao, former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation, released by Environment minister Jairam Ramesh. –Chetan Chauhan, The Hindustan Times, 21 January 2011

Colder winters could become the norm in Europe over the next 20 to 40 years, US-based forecaster Weather Services International said Tuesday. “We have recently noticed a change in [weather] patterns back to what we had in the 1950s and 1960s in Europe... We’ve had three cold winters in a row in the UK,” WSI’s chief meteorologist Todd Crawford told Platts. “We believe there is a strong likelihood that it’s going to hang around for the next 20 to 30 years.” --Olivier Lejeune, Platts, 20 January 2011

GWPF director Benny Peiser told LTT the Met Office’s computer models were “all based on the chances of cold winters diminishing.” “That’s what they say because of the CO2 influence.” The GWPF says there have now been three severe winters in a row. It wants the scientific basis of the Met Office’s work investigated.—Local Tranport Today, 16 January 2011

5) Editorial: Put Up Or Shut Up On Global Warming - The Orange County Register, 21 January 2011

1) Ramesh-Backed Paper Questions Another IPCC Claim

The Hindustan Times, 21 January 2011

India has once again challenged the UN's climate science body - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) --- through a new scientific paper.

The Environment ministry sponsored paper says that human induced global warming is much less than what the R K Pachauri headed IPCC had said. The cause is reduced impact of Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) on formulation of low clouds over earth in the last 150 years, says a paper by U R Rao, former chairman of Indian Space Research Organisation, released by Environment minister Jairam Ramesh.

The GCRs are the ones that enter solar system from outside, mostly from exploding of stars, and help in forming low-level clouds over the earth. The theory is that the solar magnetic field deflects GCRs, thereby impacting low-level cloud formation.

Analyzing the data between 1960 and 2005, Rao found that lesser GCRs were reaching the earth due to increase in solar magnetic field and thereby leading to increase in global warming.

"Consequently the contribution of increased CO2 emission to be observed global warming of 0.75 degree Celsius would only be 0.42 degree Celsius, considerably less than what predicted by IPCC," the paper said to be published in Indian Journal Current Science had said. This is about 44% less than what IPCC had said.

Ramesh in 2009 had released a similar scientific paper saying that the IPCC's claim that most Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 was wrong. A few months later, after a review the IPCC regretted the error. If Ramesh latest bid gets globally recognition, it can alter the rules of UN run climate negotiations of 200 nations.

Impact of GCRs on global warming had been highly controversial since 1998, when Henrik Svensmark of Danish National Space Center said it was causing global warming. A decade later a joint European study debunked the claim, saying there was no correlation.

V Ramanathan of US based Scripps Institute of Oceanography at University of California said the Rao's paper strengthens the case for greenhouse a primary driver for global warming. "The observed rapid warming trends during the last 40 years cannot be accounted for the trends in GCRs," he said, in his comments on Rao's paper.

"I just want to expand scientific debate on impact of non-Green House Gases on climate change," Ramesh said, when asked whether he was again challenging the IPCC. "Science is all about raising questions."

International climate science is mainly western driven and collaborates the view of the rich world that gases such as Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are the main contributor for global warming. Any scientific work challenging the view has been debunked as work of a sceptic.

"Climate science is much more complex than attributing everything to CO2," said Subodh Verma, climate change advisor in the Environment ministry.

And, its first impact has come from IPCC chairperson R K Pachauri, who has told the government, that impact of GCRs on global warming will be studied in depth in the fifth assessment report to be published in 2013-14. In its earlier four assessment reports, IPCC had not studied the impact of GCRs in detail.

The Hindustan Times, 21 January 2011

2) Cosmic rays contribute 40 p.c. to global warming: study

The Hindu, 21 January 2011

A key belief of climate science theology — that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming — has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry on Monday.

Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent.

‘Cosmic ray impact ignored'

Releasing Dr. Rao's findings as a discussion paper on Thursday, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh noted that “the impact of cosmic ray intensity on climate change has thus far been largely ignored by the mainstream scientific consensus.” He added that the “unidimensional focus” on carbon emissions by most Western countries put additional pressure on countries like India in international climate negotiations.

The continuing increase in solar activity has caused a 9 per cent decrease in cosmic ray intensity over the last 150 years, which results in less cloud cover, which in turn results in less albedo radiation being reflected back to the space, causing an increase in the Earth's surface temperature.

While the impact of cosmic rays on climate change has been studied before, Dr. Rao's paper quantifies their contribution to global warming and concludes that “the future prediction of global warming presented by IPCC's fourth report requires a relook to take into the effect due to long term changes in the galactic cosmic ray intensity.”

Policy implications

This could have serious policy implications. If human activity cannot influence such a significant cause of climate change as cosmic rays, it could change the kind of pressure put on countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Ramesh emphasised that Dr. Rao's findings would not reduce domestic action on climate change issues, but he admitted that it could influence the atmosphere of international negotiations.

“International climate negotiations are about climate politics. But increasingly, science is becoming the handmaiden of politics,” he said.

In November 2009, Mr. Ramesh had released a report by glaciologist V.K. Raina claiming that Himalayan glaciers are not all retreating at an alarming pace. It had been disputed by many Western scientists, while IPCC chairman R.K. Pachauri dismissed it as “voodoo science.” However, Dr. Raina was later vindicated by the IPCC's own retraction of its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

“Since then, Western Ministers have reduced talk about the glaciers to me, they have stopped using it as frequently as a pressure point for India to come on board,” said Mr. Ramesh.

When Mr. Ramesh sent Dr. Rao's paper to Dr. Pachauri, he replied that the next IPCC report was paying special attention to the impact of cloud cover on global warming. The Minister expressed hope that Dr. Rao's findings would be seriously studied by climate researchers.

“There is a groupthink in climate science today. Anyone who raises alternative climate theories is immediately branded as a climate atheist in an atmosphere of climate evangelists,” he said. “Climate science is incredibly more complex than [developed countries] negotiators make it out to be… Climate science should not be driven by the West. We should not always be dependent on outside reports.”

Disputing IPCC claims

According to the latest report by the IPCC, all human activity, including carbon dioxide emissions, contribute 1.6 watts/sq.m to global warming, while other factors such as solar irradiance contribute just 0.12 watts/sq.m.

However, Dr. Rao's paper calculates that the effect of cosmic rays contributes 1.1 watts/sq.m, taking the total contribution of non-human activity factors to 1.22 watts/sq.m.

This means that increased carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere are not as significant as the IPCC claims. Of the total observed global warming of 0.75 degrees Celsius, only 0.42 degrees would be caused by increased carbon dioxide. The rest would be caused by the long term decrease in primary cosmic ray intensity and its effect on low level cloud cover.

This means that predicting future global warming and sea level rise is not as simple as the IPCC makes it to be, since it depends not only on human activity, but also significantly on the unpredictability of cosmic ray intensity.

“We conclude that the contribution to climate change due to the change in galactic cosmic ray intensity is quite significant and needs to be factored into the prediction of global warming and its effect on sea level raise and weather prediction,” says the paper.

The Hindu, 21 January 2011

3) Freezing Winters In Europe Could Be The Norm

Platts, 20 January 2011

Olivier Lejeune

Colder winters could become the norm in Europe over the next 20 to 40 years, US-based forecaster Weather Services International said Tuesday.

“We have recently noticed a change in [weather] patterns back to what we had in the 1950s and 1960s in Europe... We’ve had three cold winters in a row in the UK,” WSI’s chief meteorologist Todd Crawford told Platts.

“We believe there is a strong likelihood that it’s going to hang around for the next 20 to 30 years.”

If true, the findings could have important implications for the European energy markets, where demand typically increases during winter because of higher heating and lighting requirements.

Peak electricity demand hit an all-time record in France at the beginning of December, and was near its historic record in the UK, amid temperatures that were more than 10 degrees Celsius below the seasonal norm.

Natural gas and gasoil demand also soared. Behind the freezing temperatures is the North Atlantic Oscillation, a climatic phenomenon that normally sends wind from western European countries to the east, keeping cold air from the Arctic at bay. But in December the current was flowing in the opposite direction, bringing cold Arctic air to western European regions and sending energy demand to fresh highs.

“During the last 30-40 years, the NAO was predominantly positive resulting in much warmer, wetter winters,” Crawford said. “Starting in 2008, however, the NAO has sharply reversed to a much more negative state and the result has been quite notable with three straight cold winters in the UK.”

Weak solar activity

WSI said the reversal in the NAO could be due to three factors: recent cyclical changes in North Atlantic ocean temperatures; climate change, which results in warmer Arctic air and sends cold air southward to Europe; and a “weak” solar cycle.

Crawford said all factors were potentially at play, but that reduced solar activity may turn out to the main culprit. “Our current solar cycle has been the quietest in at least 70 years, and there is some valid concern that there may be significant cooling going forward,” he said.

“We feel that the NAO has entered a cyclical negative phase, and will likely be predominantly negative for the next 20 to 40 years. This doesn’t mean every winter will have negative NAO, just most of them,” he added.

Talking to Platts Tuesday, UK national weather service the Met Office said: “There is a large amount of variability in the NAO... any long-term predictions of the NAO are speculative.” “That said, there are avenues of research being pursued to improve our understanding and ability to make such predictions in the future.”

Electricity traders said Tuesday the colder-than-usual temperatures seen last December were still being treated by market operators as an anomaly, and would unlikely result in higher prices next winter.

“That’s interesting... but you certainly wouldn’t trade off information like that,” a trader at a large UK utility said. “It is something that must be

considered going forward,” a second trader said. “But the problem in the past has been that many people state they are an authority on weather, and actually distinguishing the good from the bad can be quite difficult.”

The House of Commons transport committee is being urged to investigate the winter weather advice provided by the Met Office amid concern that transport authorities were left ill-prepared for December’s record cold weather.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has written to committee chair Louise Ellman, asking her to investigate a BBC report that the Met Office and Government knew December was likely to be exceptionally cold but did not pass on the information.

The BBC’s environment editor Roger Harrabin wrote in the Radio Times: “Why didn’t the Met Office tell us that Greenland was about to swap weather with Godalming? The truth is it did suspect we were in for an exceptionally cold early winter, and told the Cabinet Office so in October. But we weren’t let in on the secret. The reason? The Met Office no longer publishes its seasonal forecasts because of the ridicule it suffered for predicting a barbecue summer in 2009 – the summer that campers floated around in their tents.”

The GWPF points out that the apparent private advice to the Cabinet Office is at odds with information on the Met Office website that stated in late October there was a 60-80% chance of warmer than average temperatures this winter. GWPF director Benny Peiser told LTT the Met Office’s computer models were “all based on the chances of cold winters diminishing.” “That’s what they say because of the CO2 influence.”

The Met Office’s assumptions were reported in the interim report of the Government’s winter resilience review last July. The review was chaired by RAC Foundation chairman David Quarmby.

Reflecting on conversations with the Met Office’s Hadley Centre climate research team, it said: “The starting point is the slow but steady rise in average global temperature. The consensus on the UK is that on average summers will become warmer and winters will become warmer and wetter, though the next 10-15 years may be dominated by natural variability.

Quarmby said: “We are advised to assume the chance of a severe winter in 2010/11 is no greater (or less) than the current general probability of 1 in 20. The effect of climate change is to gradually but steadily reduce the probability of severe winters in the UK.”

The GWPF says there have now been three severe winters in a row. It wants the scientific basis of the Met Office’s work investigated.

Transport secretary Philip Hammond has asked Government chief scientific adviser Sir John Beddington to advise on “the longer-term implications of the changing climate and the way in which they should influence investment decisions in relation to winter resilience”.

Local Transport Today, 15 January 2011

5) Editorial: Put Up Or Shut Up On Global Warming

The Orange County Register, 21 January 2011

It is time for an independent investigation of whether or to what degree human activities are creating catastrophic global warming. It should be conducted by scientists untainted by advocacy and uncompromised through receiving taxes or private funding to advance or debunk the theory.

Many in the new Congress were elected on promises to re-evaluate global warming claims used to justify Draconian regulations. A "team of nongovernment and non-U.N. experts must be established with access to all the raw data, records, adjustments, fudges ... and computer codes currently being black-boxed by government scientists," says Robert Ferguson, president of the nonprofit Science and Public Policy Institute for "sound public policy based on sound science." We agree.

NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have resisted Freedom of Information Act requests for release of unadjusted raw data and documentation of their adjustments to them. Good science requires theories be tested.

Even proponents of catastrophic manmade global warming theory say the average global temperature increased 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past century. We must be certain such tiny changes and the cataclysmic predictions based on them are valid before imposing huge economic sacrifices, infringing personal freedoms or levying new taxes.

A good place to start is temperature data. NASA and NOAA, which together receive nearly half a billion dollars a year in tax funding for climate research, "have been systematically fiddling the worldwide temperature record for years, making 'global warming' look worse than it is," according to a new paper by meteorologist Joe D'Aleo, an American Meteorology Society fellow.

"[W]hen data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data" to agree with models' projections, says MIT meteorologist Dr. Richard Lindzen.

Research by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that 89 percent of U.S. ground temperature stations do not meet NASA's standards for distance between stations and adjacent heat sources, seriously compromising readings. That's before NASA "adjusts" the raw data, adding more significant additional false warming, Mr. Watts says.

"The raw temperature data produced by the ... stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions," he concludes.

Thousands of e-mails leaked in 2009 from Britain's Climate Research Unit showed researchers lamented the "hapless state" of their temperature records, including "hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy and duplicate stations," and "no uniform data integrity."

CRU Director Phil Jones later conceded "temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated," bringing into question the U.S. records because, "almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same."

An independent analysis also should be made of climate computer models and the purported cause-and-effect relationships assumed between greenhouse gases and higher temperature, rising sea levels and melting glaciers.